This is the end of the preview.
Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: RNANDEZ .‘J. TEXAS tetra-tin substantially
ertheless. in a brief
“refers prevailed in a
1 status or respect.
they showed that it
dragon rifgl'im Crow.
than that: They also
why and when some Protection Clause.
. way he occluded in
:‘tion is group suhor-
on. More than fift}r
e countryr as a whole the Supreme Court
.nL lessons taught by
w. DilLlIiIJl LLl thejury poo. in
.> of Venue Rﬁii‘ig Hen-ml.
-_|. Hertz, "h-‘o One Con
3111 Aeneta’s challenges to
see l'lttneji- Lopez. supra.
. "Breaking the Law" on
ad legal Regina-s, 52 Li. .-i rlf underrepresel'itat'ien,
coring ti. Cr'rttriti Jury: sin
:tp:_-'_-'i-:wjej.ejeefl'ltertrnrgjal'c J err}! Rang Dodging Reapunaibiliiy: The
Story of Hirabayashf V. United
States Introduction "Strict scrutiny” for race—based classifications is typically traced
haelt to Koi‘emo‘fstt ti. United States} the Japanese—American internment
case in which the Supreme Court trumpeted that “all legal restrictions
which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediater
suspect.“2 But the link can he made one year earlier; to the first of the
internment caeea: Hirdhttrachi L'. United States.3 although lest-e weiL
known, Hirttottt'ttsftt is arguably the more importanL case because it
created the procedural and preeedential foundation upon which Kameham-
s'tt was huilt,J To complicate matters. we must take account of two Hirehaymhi
niece: one decided during World War ii, and the other a part of the
19803 comm debts cases. in these latter raises, the men whose cont-je—
tions the Supreme Court affirmed in the 194115 marched each into
federal district court, and on the basis: of “smelting gun” erirlonee
discovered in the National Archives, the}r achieved vindication four
decades after their initial defeat. Although these cases are rightly cele- 1323 L'ﬁ. 2L4 [19-1-1].
3M. at 21%.
'3 323 El liﬂdﬁii. 4 See. an, Regents of the Univ. of (Eat. r. BHl-tl—Ct—t: «133 ES 255: 29mm (153.755,. [ﬁring t.;.
ﬂatten-Fusion": lllt-rn :‘Tfll'ﬁllltitﬁ‘it for strict scrutiny t-ILi-Jntlm't'l]; Suite-n Se Hcl’tud‘l‘J-‘ﬂ', Inc. 1;.
Members of the NY. State Crime 1victims Bi: EDIE UE. 'Iiiﬁ: 12-1 [1991;- [Kennedﬁ .i.
titmL‘L'TTmﬁ} Initiiig ‘:I2- b'inrfztryeai'zi for equal protection principles). _._.--m= .l'ﬂ In" I I _._ 325 THE STORY OJ." HIRABAYA‘EHI e. 'NJ'TEI'J STATES or, is Hit-comment’s relationship to Koreinreso and Eodo, the. two cases
decided the hallowing year. Opening Kore matsu ’3 ﬂoor In Korcmetsu, the Court, in an opinion lay Justice Huge Black,
hegan hy replicating the segmentation technique introduced in Honori—
yoshi. Ignoring the governments own concession to the contrary,“ the lourt speculated thaL, had Koreinatsu oheyed the evacuation order. he
might not have ended up in a relocation camp after all.“ Accordingly! the
lCourt would focus exclusively on the legality of eeecoation and ignore
questions related to detention. lt'lloalting itself in the mantle of self-
reersint. the lCourt exclaimed: “To do 1nore. would he to go beyond the
issues raised, and to decide momentous questions net contained within
the Framework of the pleadings or the evidence in this Eats-EKHH Through segmentation, then, the only question presented was
whether the government could require Japanese eincricans to evacuate
their homes temporarily—as if a hurricane were coining—tor personal
safety and L‘ne good of the country. In answering this narrowly framed
question! the Court announced that fill legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that ali such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is Lo say that courts must
suhject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing puhlie necessity
may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions} racial
anLagonism never can:'4
I'l‘his language marks Koremutso as the fount of strieL scrutiny. in
application, however: the flowery rhetoric wilted into limp acceptance of
erude, Lime-worn racial stert-iotypes. In the Court’s view: “pressing public
necessity” included assumptions of disloyalty hssed on race; such gener-
alisaLions were not seen as evidence of “racial antagonir-iin.”Ts rl‘he payoff oi" the segmentation technique execuLed in Honoaycasiii
was substantial. Reneging on its promise not to use Hire-hayride as Tl sit-t- Brief for the United States aL sees. ﬁorciiiatsu 'v'. United States, 323 L15. 21-4
11.944! ﬁne. 221 reprinted in 42 Larsdtrient Briers end Arguments ofthe Supreme Cour-5 of
.'.'re {Paired Sashes: Christel-rii'snui Lane 151?. ‘ZﬁU-iil [Philin B. Kurlimd I3: Gerhard Casper
eds: iEl'a'EijI [hereinafter larrti'rrsun'c Briefs] [":ll]ed [Korerttatsul obeyed all of the provisions
of the order and tile :Lcceiiipanyjng Instructions, Iiiel would have found liiliiSElF 5hr 3 period
of time: tile length of which was not Liien ascertainalile. in a place of detention.”i. 73 £95.16: Kort-Iranian. 323- L GI: 2‘21.
73 In: at 2.22.
7“ Id. LIL 215. '53 Her-.- ."t:'. at 219. ...
View
Full Document

TERM '10

PROFESSORPizarro,Marc

TAGS
Supreme Court of the United States, legal restrictions, single racial group